Do people really get "burned out" from swinging a K90 for a couple hours? How out of shape are you people? A one ounce difference is going to make very little difference to a normal adult in decent physical shape.

Click to expand...

But that's not the point. The innate power of the racquet itself is independent of the user. You expend more energy to get power out of the K90 than the APD because the K90 is heavier and lower-powered. The power is being generated by YOU, not the racquet itself.

Do people really get "burned out" from swinging a K90 for a couple hours? How out of shape are you people? A one ounce difference is going to make very little difference to a normal adult in decent physical shape.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I've played with 13 ounce ps85 when I was 15. I don't see what the big deal is over "I can't swing a k90 for 3 sets" Lol.

WOW 16 OUNCES! OMG! Only the hulk can lift that!!!!. Anybody can swing 16 oz. The only thing that will change is how your strokes look. Players will go back to more textbook strokes instead of buggywhip Nadal forehands and Indiana Jones whip forehands like Federer. 16oz is nothing, only if you insist on playing the same way you play with an 11oz racquet would it be an issue. Any time there are new rule changes, player adapt. Big deal. As long as everyone's on the same playing field and the rules apply to everybody, then there is no issue.

They also have rafa using the apd 2014. Not his real racket. Marketing.

The scientific part of tennis warehouse university . The ttw professors. Has the k90 having more power.

Bada bing.

Click to expand...

"ttw professors"...on a website that sells and markets things as you just said? Hmmmm......maybe there's nothing scientific about ttw university and they just use it to goad the "gear heads" into buying something from them. Makes one wonder..........makes one wonder.

"ttw professors"...on a website that sells and markets things as you just said? Hmmmm......maybe there's nothing scientific about ttw university and they just use it to goad the "gear heads" into buying something from them. Makes one wonder..........makes one wonder.

Click to expand...

Ttw prof is Crawford Lindsey. He seems legit.

Also his findings in this case actually does not correspond to anecdotal and marketing information.

But regardless. I would place more value on ttw prof than bionic ttw posters.

WOW 16 OUNCES! OMG! Only the hulk can lift that!!!!. Anybody can swing 16 oz. The only thing that will change is how your strokes look. Players will go back to more textbook strokes instead of buggywhip Nadal forehands and Indiana Jones whip forehands like Federer. 16oz is nothing, only if you insist on playing the same way you play with an 11oz racquet would it be an issue. Any time there are new rule changes, player adapt. Big deal. As long as everyone's on the same playing field and the rules apply to everybody, then there is no issue.

Click to expand...

I think 16 Oz I would not play well with. But the difference between 11 and 12 Oz is not enough for me to go all ttw rainman and start the witch hunt of why the ttw prof Crawford Lindsey is using invalid scientific principles.
You would think the ttw prof would know how to best test frames. But these rec goats and bionic or beyond posters think they know better.

If you're going to take the side of scientific this and that, it behooves you to use scientific methodology when considering the source. Since TTW's goal is to sell tennis related things, to assume that their "tools" are somehow unbiased would be a gross oversight.

If you're going to take the side of scientific this and that, it behooves you to use scientific methodology when considering the source. Since TTW's goal is to sell tennis related things, to assume that their "tools" are somehow unbiased would be a gross oversight.

Click to expand...

The ttw prof is a person not a tool. And his integrity has not been questioned as far as I know. His main job has been author and researcher. And you do not apply scientific experimental methods to marketing research. It's totally different criteria. And I do not care for the scientific focus of racket specs. I just pointed out the anecdotal errors perpetuated by certain posters with no real idea why they think so and posted proof.

But regardless. I don't think what ttw prof publishes is what drives sales. I think what tw hopes to drive sales is the fact they actually have a tw learning section. Added value. I don't think people buying rackets are going on ttw university and reading all the research. If they did they would see the k90 is in fact according to tw prof not a low powered racket compared to an apd. In fact they are very similar in power levels. It's the other things that differ much more vastly.

Just the fact that I'm probably the only person that have pointed out the power level similarities of an k90 and apd should show even racket geeks are not looking at the real data but just repeating folk lore and marketing jargon.

If they did they would see the k90 is in fact according to tw prof not a low powered racket compared to an apd. In fact they are very similar in power levels.....Just the fact that I'm probably the only person that have pointed out the power level similarities of an k90 and apd should show even racket geeks are not looking at the real data but just repeating folk lore and marketing jargon.

Click to expand...

I hope you realize why these two statements are completely at odds with each other. Real folks are simply looking for racquets that help them improve their game by helping to mitigate their shortcomings. If one of those shortcomings includes not putting in enough practice time to genuinely get better, well, there are racquets that help that. Given that most people will never play with pros, top juniors or even very good collegiate players they probably don't really need to get that good at tennis; just good enough. To that end, "anecdotal" evidence is and will continue to be good enough, and in all likelihood, valid given enough concurring opinion.

People may not be using the right terminology to describe an effect they feel but it doesn't make the observations invalid. For example, a racquet with a bigger sweetspot make not techinically make the ball go faster than another but if it changes the outgoing trajectory by just one degree that causes the ball to land three feet farther than another racquet, the observation may be viewed as "more power". That's not what's happening but it's good enough as anyone who then buys that racquet expecting "more power" will be satisfied.

I hope you realize why these two statements are completely at odds with each other. Real folks are simply looking for racquets that help them improve their game by helping to mitigate their shortcomings. If one of those shortcomings includes not putting in enough practice time to genuinely get better, well, there are racquets that help that. Given that most people will never play with pros, top juniors or even very good collegiate players they probably don't really need to get that good at tennis; just good enough. To that end, "anecdotal" evidence is and will continue to be good enough, and in all likelihood, valid given enough concurring opinion.

People may not be using the right terminology to describe an effect they feel but it doesn't make the observations invalid. For example, a racquet with a bigger sweetspot make not techinically make the ball go faster than another but if it changes the outgoing trajectory by just one degree that causes the ball to land three feet farther than another racquet, the observation may be viewed as "more power". That's not what's happening but it's good enough as anyone who then buys that racquet expecting "more power" will be satisfied.

Click to expand...

I agree. My disagreements were with BP because he presents anecdotal evidence as scientific fact. And they are not. I point them out and ttw professor gets his methods dragged through the mud and he is accused of not knowing what he is doing. I simply object to this.

I agree. My disagreements were with BP because he presents anecdotal evidence as scientific fact. And they are not.

Click to expand...

I don't think he's presenting things as "scientific" fact. More as "proven through use" fact. I too don't always agree with BP but I find that his posts are still less "out there" than many other posts. Even in this discussion I've yet to see him really say anything that raises any real points worth debate.

I point them out and ttw professor gets his methods dragged through the mud and he is accused of not knowing what he is doing. I simply object to this.

Click to expand...

But there are things within TWU that even I take issue with. I DO NOT claim they are untrue or true, only that it seems off given experience. For example, I take issue with this quote regarding control:

"Higher power potential means less racquet movement, bending, twisting, and rotation. Such alterations in racquet trajectory result in unintentional changes in ball trajectory. That means less directional control. More power means more control."

More racquet frame movement can lead to additional feel from a player and that feel will naturally bring more control if interpreted correctly by the player's instincts. It's also not about one shot but multiple shots. If a player "learns" an opponent's incoming ball better (regarding spin, power, whatever) with a softer frame, or even how they personally are hitting that match, control will only increase. I think that in general there isn't really a good way to measure tennis racquets objectively. While I applaud TWU for trying, there's so much that can't be measured that I'm not sure TWU is a powerful tool.

I don't think he's presenting things as "scientific" fact. More as "proven through use" fact. I too don't always agree with BP but I find that his posts are still less "out there" than many other posts. Even in this discussion I've yet to see him really say anything that raises any real points worth debate.

But there are things within TWU that even I take issue with. I DO NOT claim they are untrue or true, only that it seems off given experience. For example, I take issue with this quote regarding control:

"Higher power potential means less racquet movement, bending, twisting, and rotation. Such alterations in racquet trajectory result in unintentional changes in ball trajectory. That means less directional control. More power means more control."

More racquet frame movement can lead to additional feel from a player and that feel will naturally bring more control if interpreted correctly by the player's instincts. It's also not about one shot but multiple shots. If a player "learns" an opponent's incoming ball better (regarding spin, power, whatever) with a softer frame, or even how they personally are hitting that match, control will only increase. I think that in general there isn't really a good way to measure tennis racquets objectively. While I applaud TWU for trying, there's so much that can't be measured that I'm not sure TWU is a powerful tool.

Click to expand...

Well we can all disagree. And I see varying layers of intent and validity. But there is only one poster here who writes in absolutes and that is clearly wrong. And we know who that is.

Well we can all disagree. And I see varying layers of intent and validity. But there is only one poster here who writes in absolutes and that is clearly wrong. And we know who that is.

Click to expand...

I never write in absolutes, dang it!

I mean sometimes in a grayish sort of theme of writing, I lean more toward an intent to include all views and opinions, deducing what would lend itself to have some intelligent direction to what I would side with. Notwithstanding, that is neither good or bad.

I mean sometimes in a grayish sort of theme of writing, I lean more toward an intent to include all views and opinions, deducing what would lend itself to have some intelligent direction to what I would side with. Notwithstanding, that is neither good or bad.

LOL

Click to expand...

This is probably because you are a reasonable and educated human being. Someone who does not equate their self identity and worth to the total number of ttw posts you have accumulated.

But your mistaken again because the apd and the k90 does not have the same swing weight.
If they both had the SAME swing weight (which they don't) then the apd would be more powerful because it is stiffer. But since it doesn't it is not. Understand?

Click to expand...

le sigh...

We were specifically discussing in the event that ALL things were equal, IE swing speed, mass, swingweight, the APD is marginally more powerful because of its larger headsize (more string to work with), and slightly higher stiffness.

Now, you're claming the K90 is more powerful because in stock form it has a higher swingweight. This would be true IF the swing speed was the same on both frames, but many people find they can swing the APD faster because it's lighter, and so are able to produce more power.

I don't know about you, but I generally feel that when I encounter an APD/PD, I tend to see more pace and spin, but it's not nearly as heavy of a ball. The old mids may not produce the same mph in most people's hands, but the shot is heavier for some reason.

Personal experience, again. But I would rather play against an APD user who tried to spin me off the court, because his shots aren't as tough to handle nor as precise as an experienced mid user.